Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
This is a very serious allegation to accuse someone of not believing God's promises. Tell us which of God's promises exactly that WPM doesn't believe in and use scripture to show what you're talking about.
22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Partial preterists don't believe that Matthew 24:29-30 is referring to a future second coming of Christ, so you have no idea of what you're talking about. Learn what partial preterists believe first before you accuse me of being one. Don't be so ignorant. They also don't believe that Revelation 19:11-21 is about the future second coming of Christ, but I do. So, you can accuse me of being a partial preterist all you want, but you're wrong and you're making yourself look like a fool by falsely accusing me like that.
That is what a vast majority of partial preterists believe. They do believe in a future second coming, but they don't believe it's described in Matthew 24:29-30. Trust me, I have debated many partial preterists over the years. For you to call me one is a complete joke. If I'm one then so are you because you believe some prophecy was fulfilled in the past such as any prophecies about the first coming of Christ. So, I guess that makes you a partial preterist as well?
You seem to be futurist about everything which doesn't make any sense. Especially considering that Jesus very specifically predicted the destruction of the city of Jerualem and the temple buildings standing at that time.
No, you are clearly the ignorant one here. You are being lazy and not doing any research on what partial preterists believe.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
How could such a temple be something that Paul would call "the temple of God"? Please answer this question instead of just repeating yourself yet again.
You said yourself that this temple you believe will be built in the future wouldn't be one that God would approve of, right? So, how can it be called "the temple of God"?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Okay, you're a child who is incapable of having an adult discussion. I get it. Sorry to bother you. Please go back to playing with your toys.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Loaded language? What does that mean?
I had asked this in reference to the animal sacrifices that you believe will be performed in the future:
Why would there be nothing in scripture stating what their purpose would be? Is this question too difficult? I don't believe so. Do you just not want to answer it?
And then I asked this:
Do you believe the following passage is referring to the animal sacrifices and offerings that you believe will be performed in the future?
Ezekiel 45:15 Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 All the people of the land will be required to give this special offering to the prince in Israel. 17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed festivals of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the Israelites.
Again, is this question too difficult? Just a yes or no answer would suffice.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
What's simple is that I've been told regularly that I have no Scriptures to back up my claims. Yet here I've given you the classic Rev 20 Scripture evidence, and instead of apologizing you just want more.
Actually, there's quite a bit more. But the Bible isn't interested in detailing the coming age. It just assumes that God will fulfill His promises to Abraham, and that the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth "as the waters cover the sea."
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You don't think it matters that you can't provide any other scripture to support your interpretation of Revelation 20? So, everything else has to be understood in light of Revelation 20 instead of Revelation 20 being understood in light of other scripture?
Where? I particularly am interested in where the Bible teaches this multiple kingdom inheritance at the return of Christ that you believe in.
Jesus gave some details about it. Do they match what you believe? He said in Luke 20:34-36 that those who are worthy to obtain the coming age won't get married and won't die. But, you have people dying during the coming age (and probably getting married, too).
God has been fulfilling His promises to Abraham. Where did these promises include anything about giving a kingdom to mortals that is something different than the kingdom Paul said mortal flesh and blood will not inherit at His second coming?
Randy, can you tell me which of the multiple kingdoms that you believe people will inherit when Christ returns that Jesus is referring to here:
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
Do you believe this is referring to the same kingdom Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit? If so, where does Matthew 25:31-46 indicate that any other kingdom will be inherited at that time?
Last edited:
It is better than being a Dispensatanist!
The Lord frequently called out the spiritual impotence of national Israel by way of symbol and by way of a parable. In Luke 13:6-9 He used the fig tree to symbolize natural Israel’s demise. He taught: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.”
Contained within these comments was proof that major change was coming. Here Christ is speaking of Israel’s lack of fruitlessness as a fig tree. He presents this as the reason why the fig tree must be cut down. Here, He is referring to how the nation generally rebelled against His message of salvation and hence brought forth no fruit acceptable unto God. That ministry lasted 3 ½ years on this earth and culminated in the Jews crucifying the Messiah. In the parable Christ refers to the length of His ministry.
On the day after His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, many of the citizens of Jerusalem heralded Him, saying, “Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest” (Mark 11:9-11).
But the text continues in Mark 11:13-14, “seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.”
Did Christ curse this fig tree simply to prove His deity? Did He do it for no obvious reason? Or was He impressing some great spiritual truth upon His disciples in regard to natural Israel?
Jesus did nothing without a purpose. This was not some pointless irrelevant act to prove Christ’s deity or omnipotence; it was an object lesson in regard to Israel. The fig tree symbolically represents the physical nation of Israel whereas the olive tree represents the spiritual people of Israel. When Christ cursed the fig tree He was demonstrating the removing of the exclusive theocratic favor of God from the physical nation of Israel, whereas, the olive tree will exist forever. Years of abusing God’s favor, years of successive misrule among the national judges and kings, and the spiritual leaders, especially among the priests, and ongoing idolatry and stubborn rebellion among the people, finally brought the theocratic reign to an end. Never again will God’s favor be restricted to a genetic interim earthly nation, but rather to a spiritual eternal heavenly nation.
Verse 12-14 records, in the NKJV: “Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In response Jesus said to it, ‘Let no one eat fruit from you ever again’.”
The old covenant theocracy was gone forever. After this, the Lord significantly headed straight for the very epicenter of the Jewish religion – the temple – and overturned the tables, demonstrating that He had had enough with their religious hypocrisy and stubborn rebellion.
Verse 15-17 in the KJV says, “they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
The favor of God was never intended to be limited to one nation. It was always God’s plan to reach the nations. This was the great turning point in history where kingdom blessing was transferred from the physical entity of natural Israel to the spiritual entity of the New Testament Church. With the introduction of the new covenant arrangement that move occurred. His house would no longer be considered a physical house in Jerusalem, but rather a spiritual house that would be a home throughout “all nations.”
The arrival of the new covenant arrangement, and the broadening out of the people of God, coincided with the removal of the old covenant apparatus. This was Jesus revealing His heart and plan for a fallen world.
Dispensationalists frequently argue that “this teaching misrepresents God as one who breaks His promises.” They rationalize: “If God breaks His promises, then how is one to know His salvation is secure? How may the Church know that God will not find another people to replace it for the sins it has committed?” Or, “if God did not keep His promises to Israel 2000 years ago, how then can we be sure He will keep His word to us in the future?”
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,973
- 3,758
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
You are "Partial Preterist" in your Eschatology
GotQuestions.org
Preterism is the eschatological view that the “end times” prophecies of the Bible have already been fulfilled. So, when we read what the Bible says about the tribulation, we are reading history. Preterism is divided into two camps: full (or consistent) preterism and partial preterism. Full preterism takes an extreme view that all prophecy in the Bible has been fulfilled in one way or another. Partial preterists take a more moderate approach, and many partial preterists consider full preterists to be guilty of heresy.
Those who hold to partial preterism believe that the prophecies in Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation (with the exception of the last two or three chapters) have already been fulfilled and were fulfilled no later than the first century AD. According to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.
In order for partial preterists to maintain their position, they insist that the book of Revelation was written early (before AD 70). They must also use an inconsistent hermeneutic when interpreting prophetic passages. According to the preterist view of the end times, chapters 6—18 of Revelation are highly symbolic, not describing any literal events. Since the destruction of Jerusalem did not involve the wholesale destruction of sea life (Revelation 16:3) or agonizing darkness (verse 10), these judgments are interpreted by the preterist as purely allegorical. However, according to preterists, chapter 19 is to be understood literally—Jesus Christ will physically return. But chapter 20 is again interpreted allegorically by preterists, while chapters 21—22 are understood literally, at least in part, in that there will truly be a new heaven and new earth.
No one denies that Revelation contains amazing and sometimes confusing visions. No one denies that Revelation describes many things figuratively—that’s the nature of apocalyptic literature. However, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation is to destroy the basis of interpreting any of the book literally. If the plagues, witnesses, beast, false prophet, millennial kingdom, etc., are all allegorical, then on what basis do we claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal? That is the failure of preterism—it leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter.
Those who hold to partial preterism also do not read Matthew 24 in a literal sense. Christ spoke of the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:2). But much of what He described did not occur in AD 70. Christ speaks of that future time as one of “great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened” (Matthew 24:21–22). Surely, this cannot be applied to the events of AD 70. There have been worse times in the history of the world since then.
The Lord also says, “Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:29–30). In order for the events of these two verses to have already occurred, Jesus Christ must have returned bodily in AD 70—but He did not. The partial preterist believes that these verses do not refer to a bodily return of Christ but to an appearing of His judgment. However, this is not what a normal, literal reading of the text would lead anyone to believe. It is the “Son of Man” whom people see, not just His judgment.
Partial preterists also appeal to Matthew 24:34 where Jesus speaks of “this generation.” They say that Christ was referring to those living at the time He spoke the words recorded in that chapter; thus, the tribulation had to occur within about 40 years of His statement. However, we believe that Jesus was not referring to the people of His day but to the generation who would witness the events recorded in Matthew 24:15–31. That future generation will witness all of the swiftly moving events of the last days, including Christ’s bodily return (verses 29–30).
The partial preterist viewpoint leads to a belief in amillenialism (or post-millenialism) and is associated with covenant theology. Of course, it rejects dispensationalism. But its main problem is its inconsistent hermeneutic and its allegorizing of many biblical prophecies that are better understood literally. While partial preterism is within the scope of orthodoxy, it is not the majority view among Christians today.
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,973
- 3,758
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
This future Temple will be dedicated to the Hebrew God of the Bible in Jerusalem, it's that simple
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,973
- 3,758
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I'm a Futurist in my eschatology, your claim that I'm a dispensationalist is false
1.) I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture
2.) I don't believe God has a covenant with National Ethnic Israel, the Church is God's Israel
3.) I don't believe in a Millennial Kingdom on this earth
"Gods words clearly teach"
1.) A future 70 weeks of Daniel
2.) A future literal human man Daniel's (Little Horn), Paul's (Man Of Sin), John's (The Beast) all the same bad guy known as (The Antichrist)
3.) A future literal 3.5 year tribulation, that starts when this human man is revealed to the world
4.) A future time of the (Two Witnesses) Rev 11:3-15 that will have literal bodies that die, and they will bring literal plagues upon a literal world, a remake of Moses/Aaron against Pharaoh of Egypt
5.) A future second coming of Jesus in the heavens, in a catching up of believers, resurrection of all, final judgment (The End)
At this second coming the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, are revealed in the "Twinkling Of An Eye"
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Okay, I have no discernment whatsoever. So what?
Your view is not very sophisticated or nuanced with regard to the facts of the matter. The death of Jesus on the cross ended the need for the atonement sacrifices. His death on the cross did not eliminate the need or desire for other sacrifices. And yes, other types of sacrifices exist.
No, not going to happen. You and WPM are not looking for answers. You are looking for targets. Anyone with a Bible Search engine at hand can learn about the various other sacrifices God, through Moses prescribed. Do your own research. Once you inform yourself, you will be able to answer the question yourself as to why sacrifices will be practiced during the Millennial kingdom.
At the time of Jesus, he was very critical of how and why his own people practiced Moses. But Jesus himself said that he did NOT come to abolish the Law. Paul, not only approved of his own religion, he practiced it as he said.
Again, come to the discussion armed with information.
This is your response to everything I say. Why am I not surprised. I can't take criticism from people who have not studied or taken the time to know the material. Go study and then come back.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. I thought I was talking to someone else. I was engaged in an honest discussion of the exegesis of a particular passage of scripture in light of a particular eschatological point of view. I can see now that you had no interest in an honest look at the passage. I was expecting that you might understand the distinction between proof and contradiction. And the fact that although a passage doesn't prove an assertion, it doesn't contradict it either.
So what? Stay focused on your own argument, or is that too hard? Did you forget? You asked for an explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:50 in light of the Premillennial view that the Millennial Period will witness living mortals after the Second Advent. My answer is that 1 Corinthians 15 does not rule that out. Your objection is based on several assumptions which are not explicitly expressed in the text. Paul's essential point in the text is this, whether alive or dead, those in Christ Jesus will be transformed from corruption to incorruption; from perishable to imperishable. He gives no other information with regard to those who are not in Christ Jesus.
Why do you ask?
You might recall, perhaps not, that I said something about eternal aspects of the kingdom as opposed to temporal aspects of the kingdom. Somehow, without reading carefully, you misconstrued this into two kingdoms. Try to pay better attention.
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,973
- 3,758
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Your claim is false, however you promote preterist eschatology in 66-70AD fulfillment
You deny that the 3 items below are future and literal, correct me if I'm wrong?
Please give your explanation of how, when, where, these will or have been fulfilled?
1.) A future literal human man Daniel's (Little Horn), Paul's (Man Of Sin), John's (The Beast) all the same bad guy known as (The Antichrist)
2.) A future literal 3.5 year tribulation, that starts when this human man is revealed to the world
3.) A future time of the (Two Witnesses) Rev 11:3-15 that will have literal bodies that die, and they will bring literal plagues upon a literal world, a remake of Moses/Aaron against Pharaoh of Egypt
Last edited:
He is an Idealist. They believe in several symbolic recaps in Revelation. But Idealists do not "insist that the book of Revelation was written early (before AD 70)." And even though they believe the book is highly symbolic, they do not relate it to AD66-70.
Spiritual Jew asked you: "So, what would be the purpose of these supposed future animal sacrifices then? Use scripture to support your answer."
You answered:
It sounds like you have a lot to hide. You are obviously uncomfortable with your own position. I would be the same. I would be totally ashamed of it. It is one thing to hold to this nonsense but another thing again to promote it on a public board. It is a disgrace for a Christian Pastor to promote this. You are deceiving readers and listeners. You need to apologize and repent.
I asked you:
"What is the purpose of these animal sacrifices in your supposed future millennium? Why will you not tell us?"
You replied:
I then answered it in #4877 and you have still refused to keep your word. It is time for you to keep your word and show your evidence.
If you want your words to have any credibility I would suggest you keep your word.
You answered:
It sounds like you have a lot to hide. You are obviously uncomfortable with your own position. I would be the same. I would be totally ashamed of it. It is one thing to hold to this nonsense but another thing again to promote it on a public board. It is a disgrace for a Christian Pastor to promote this. You are deceiving readers and listeners. You need to apologize and repent.
I asked you:
"What is the purpose of these animal sacrifices in your supposed future millennium? Why will you not tell us?"
You replied:
I then answered it in #4877 and you have still refused to keep your word. It is time for you to keep your word and show your evidence.
If you want your words to have any credibility I would suggest you keep your word.
- Status
Similar threads
